DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003756899-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2019-06-04

000104619

Contested design: 003756899-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld; registered Community design No 003756899-0001 is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Se estima la solicitud de declaración de nulidad. 2. Se declara nulo el dibujo o modelo comunitario registrado n.º 003756899-0001. 3. La titular sufrague las costas de la solicitante, cuantificadas en 750 EUR.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Mustech Electronics Co., Limited

China (CN)

3F, Building # B2, Shanghe Industry Park, Nanchang Road, Xixiang, Baoan Country, Shenzhen City, República Popular de China

Represented by

Maucher Jenkins

Holder · RCD owner

Binyang Zeng

China (CN)

Huanan Road n.º 1, Fu an Avenue, Longgang Country, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province 518100, República Popular de China

Prior art cited (2)

Web disclosureAnexo 1

YouTube printout of a microscope called 'DIGIMICRO Prof'

YouTube · disclosed 2016-04-01

Web disclosureAnexo 2

YouTube printout of a microscope called 'Digimicro Prof'

YouTube · disclosed 2014-02-18

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 5Article 7

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the contested microscope design lacked novelty over earlier disclosures in Annexes 1 to 6, especially YouTube publications from 2016 and 2014, and alternatively lacked individual character.
  • Applicant also argued the registered views were inconsistent and did not represent the same product within Article 3(a) CDR.
  • Holder filed no observations in response.
  • The Division found the YouTube publications accessible to the relevant circles before filing and accepted them as prior disclosures under Article 7 CDR.
  • Comparing Annex 1 with the contested RCD, the Division found only insignificant differences, held the design lacked novelty, and invalidated the RCD without examining the remaining grounds.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
  • MemberGailė Sakalaitė
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

16.06

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129117

vs QINGWEI LIU

2026-03-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)168
000130544

vs ShangHai Jheyewear Co.,Ltd

2026-03-06REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)168
000130342

vs AFFARGO LTD

2026-02-04REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)168
000125536

vs SHENZHEN AIXIANGPAI E-BUSSINESS CO., LTD

2025-02-07REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)168
000124085

vs Paweł Kośmider

2024-05-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)168
000124135

vs Paweł Kośmider

2024-05-30REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)168
000120389

vs Wenzhou Shengchu Trading Co., Ltd.

2023-06-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)168
000119600

vs Shenzhen Amtang Technology Co., Ltd.

2023-04-05REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)168